Conservatives deal with facts and reach conclusions; liberals have conclusions and sell them as facts.

Others are noting Obama’s weird relationship with women

With the trigger being Obama’s obsession with niqabs and hijabs, I did a lengthy post about my belief that Obama fundamentally does not like women. He depends on strong women (his wife, Valerie Jarrett), but he doesn’t like them. In fact, I’m willing to bet that his dependence on them only increases that dislike. I’ll add here that male narcissists are often the product of genuinely unloving mothers and that a strong dislike for women is an intregral part of their make-up. (And consider how frequently Obama’s mother abandoned him throughout his young life, when she wasn’t dragging him around like an old anchor.)

Others are catching on to Obama’s fraught relationship with women. The trigger isn’t anything so deep as his desire to see women veiled. Instead, it’s those all male golf courses. Obama’s desire to get his recreation in all male environments (golf, basketball, etc.) has Bonnie Erbe, at U.S. News and World Reports, thinking:

Whether it was his treatment of Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail (as in his condescending remark that she was “likeable enough”) or his clearly career-oriented mate who has been toned down and remorphed into a Stepford Wife, I just don’t get the impression this man is comfortable with women. Nor do I believe he cares about them beyond needing women’s votes. It’s an act and a thoroughly see-through, amateur one at that.

As you know, I was all over that condescending remark to Hillary, but I saw it more as a sign of the man’s arrogance, than his innate misogyny. Put it together with the other stuff, though, and Erbe may well be on to something.

One more thing: Erbe can’t resist in her post being nasty about the old Southern politician Jesse Helms. But I think there’s a difference between, on the one hand, old guys who never got it with women’s lib, but who still fundamentally liked women (and I don’t think Helms ever showed dislike for women) and, on the other hand, a true misogynist, who really hates women at a fundamental level that goes far beyond societal beliefs about women’s roles.

Share this:

It seems to me that this issue bubbled up last week when a very attractive NBC reporter-ette questioned President Obama about his all-male basketball game at the White House. He replied that her take on the game, that it was a networking opportunity gender exclusion, was, “Bunk”. Having played a fair amount of all-male basketball in my lifetime, I agree.

The implications of the reporter-ette’s question seem more than a bit inane to me. Beside the obvious logical fallacy of going from the specific to the general, the reporter-ette’s question implies that the President is somehow restricted in his freedom of association due to his office. Are the National Basketball Association and the National Football League similarly denying the weaker sex networking opportunities? What about men’s rooms, are they really secret conspiracy hubs disguised as biological relief stations?

The old “networking exclusion” was never more than a invasive feminist canard. Across the Bay from lovely Marin there stands one Mills College which excludes menfolk from its undergraduate programs. What no concern about this? Of course not. This issue is nothing more than another civil rights hustle. What can we get by claiming to be a victimized victim of victimization?

As to the President’s relationship with women, again, it isn’t women, it’s people. The failure of the media to address the effects of the President’s relationship with both his parents falls somewhere between nonfeasance and malfeasance. That a child could be abandoned by his male parent and then, years later, be sent away by his female parent and have no serious psychological disturbance conflicts grossly with my understanding of human behavior. Have we ever had a President with such a fractured childhood? That the President was never questioned about how he dealt with these issues and resolved them was more grease on the skids to his White House occupancy.

http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

I agree with you, 11B40, that sometimes a cigar is just a smoke, and sometimes a basketball game with the guys is just that — a game with the guys. Indeed, in most cases I’m not thrilled with mixing the sexes for high impact sports, because the guys have to hold back and the gals can get hurt. I know that, in martial arts, I always feel as if the guys who have to grapple or spar with me are getting cheated. I’m so much smaller than they are that they basically just stand still.

Having said that, I think the Erbe comment about Obama’s nastiness to Hillary is the point that’s on the money. I don’t think this man likes women. He needs them, but he really doesn’t want to be near them otherwise.

I can’t quite explain this intangible. It’s not about respect for women, or beliefs about women’s roles in society, or anything else. It’s about whether, at a very fundamental level, entirely separate from societal roles, the guy sees the woman as a nothing more than a convenient sexual vehicle or if he sees her as a whole person whose company he might enjoy.

Narcissists very often fall into the former category. Clinton is a perfect example. His wife was a career vehicle, and all other women were sex objects. Obama doesn’t seem (so far) to be a very sexual man, so his wife and Jarrett are career vehicles, and the rest of the time he doesn’t have much use or liking for women.

So no, the basketball game is just that; the golf game is just that. But the package of women at work, men at play, and nasty remarks in between, not to mention the joy he finds in covering women, all lead to one word: misogynist.

11B40

Greetings:

At the risk of seeming contentious, why not a misanthrope?

I appreciate the specific incidents that you mention, but they don’t convince me that he doesn’t see/treat men similarly (except for the sexual aspect). As a male, if you aren’t conned or appearing to be conned, what use would a narcissist have for you or your presence.

A good while back, I commented about how I would have played President Obama on the basketball court. Initially, I would have made sure that he didn’t like me and I would have been right in front of him as long as I was able. That’s what he can’t handle. That’s why the Fox attack. He’s too used to acquiescence and compliance and he can’t handle much else for long.

I’m convinced that his attacks are more a warning to his fellow travelers to stay conned than an attempt to scare those who would offend him. As he was abandoned, so he will abandon. There is no loyalty or commitment except to himself.

If he is somewhat more circumspect about his treatment of menfolk, my guess would be that it’s because they can hit harder.

http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

I’ll buy misanthropic too, 11B40. In the words of the old Kingston Trio song, I think Obama always has running in his head the line “And I don’t like anybody very much.” But I do think there’s a special condescending animus he reserves for women.

SADIE

A few snips from the WSJ link below my comment (science and stuff).

We used to call this type someone that was not wrapped too tight or that they were wired all wrong. Not that I need to remind anyone in this room.

snips below/
Their preliminary analysis indicates that fatherless degu pups (a type of rodent) exhibit more aggressive and impulsive behavior than pups raised by two parents.

Neurons have branches, known as dendrites, that conduct electrical signals received from other nerve cells to the body, or trunk, of the neuron. The leaves of the dendrites are protrusions called dendritic spines that receive messages and serve as the contact between neurons.

However, the length of some types of dendrites was significantly shorter in some parts of the brain, even in adulthood, in fatherless animals.

The neuronal differences were observed in a part of the brain called the amygdala, which is related to emotional responses and fear, and the orbitofrontal cortex, or OFC, the brain’s decision-making center.

Let’s say Obama really does go bonkers from all the pressure to act like a normal man and his handlers hustle him off to some R&R at a sanitarium. Biden’s now in charge.

What would the country be like with Biden at the helm?

SADIE

FREE PLUGS for everyone replete with a Plug Czar.

Zhombre

If Biden was the caretaker President preliminary to the election of Petraeus, I’d be cool with that. I’d rather have a military man of real experience, intelligence and accomplishment than the empty suits, hollow men, and spineless RINOs that now populate both Insane Clown Posse-R and Insane Clown Posse-D.

suek

>>What would the country be like with Biden at the helm?>>

No doubt you’ve heard the line that Biden was chosen as VP as insurance against assassination???

Charles Martel

I don’t even know why I asked the question.

Remember the Exxon Valdez? That’s what it would be like.

SADIE

Charles, I just adore the fact that you are of that age that you can toss out Exxon Valdez and I can coo back to you Captain Hazelwood.

There’s a generation out there, no doubt, that believes this is a grade of fuel from the pump.

Would you like high test or valdez?

http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

I’m so much smaller than they are that they basically just stand still.

That’s cause you’re taking it easy on em, of course.

Danny Lemieux

Exxon or Juan Valdez?

SADIE

What ever happened to Juan – maybe when Columbia’s other exports were making the headlines instead of the coupon section of the paper, he lost favor.

Charles Martel

In a just and sane world, SADIE would benignly (and wisecrackingly) rule a vast and happy empire, Danny Lemieux would be its Minister of Mirth for life, and Ymarsakar would be the Secretary of Horatio at the Gate. Suek would be the mayor of Chicago.

Well, at least in my just and sane world.

Quisp

Since no one even pretends Biden is competent, there would either be more strenuous checks and balances or (sadly, more likely) a wild scramble for power with half of Congress and several Czars doing their best Al Haig impressions. It’s worrisome because I really don’t believe Obama will be able to hold it together for three more years without going Captain Queeg.

SADIE

Charles Martel would be the Inimitable Sage (and why you are handling out titles, Quisp should be in charge of strawberries) just in case.

suek

Chicago??? You’re going to give me Chicago???

The _windy_ city? Is that a hint?

Hmmmph.

Besides – it’s _COOOOLD_ there!

San Diego is nice.

I’d even take San Francisco. There’s _got_ to be _something_ that could be done with that place…. Of course, it’s probably the only city that you could say was downhill all the way – all the time. Or that any progress would be an uphill climb.

Of course, Book’s there…guess we’d have to give her first claim. You notice I’m avoiding LA. LA is _big_. It’s almost like the UN big. Almost like you’d need to speak about 10 different languages big. Not as corrupt as Chicago, but they’re working on it.

SADIE

I think Charles was depending on you to clean up the corruption.

You’ve got the family military background on your resume. Maybe an appearance on Oprah …? You could state your platform and intentions for the folks.

Just imagine being called ‘suek the scapel’ as you cut away the corruption, and then it’s onto … the other towns, villages and cities.

suek

Heh…if I lived long enough! Those people play _rough_!! Maybe not compared to AQ (I really think O has _no_ idea), but rough. And I’m not much of a chess player. You definitely need someone who innately understands the manuveurs of the chess board – I don’t think that’s something that can be learned – and how to apply those moves to real life. Some people do that better than others. Sadly, I’m just a checkers player. That can be good, but you’re always at risk for being out done by the person who’s five moves ahead of you. You can be manuveured into traps because you haven’t planned far enough ahead.

Well. Yes it can be learned, but as with any skill, if you have talent and apply effort to learning the skill, you’ll outdo the person who has talent but doesn’t work, as well as the hard working but not so talented individual.

So. How would you start? I think with an incorruptible (is that possible?) prosecutor. Freeze money…find the leaks. There are money leaks, and there are info leaks that allow people to find the money. Find the leaks – both money and info. Move people around. Reorganize. Disrupt. You just about can’t fire people, and if you can’t prosecute them (lots of stuff people do isn’t prosecutable) but you can disrupt them. Find out where the push back comes from – and that’s where you start looking closest.

You know…when I learned that the Dems had focused on getting Dems into as many of the Secretary of State positions as possible (in as many states as possible) I was floored. It goes back to the Stalin thing of “It doesn’t matter so much who votes, as who _counts_ the votes.” We’ve gone along assuming that most people are honest. Now, I’m not so sure, and it does scare me. Do _we_ have honest elections? How can we hold others in contempt for fixed elections when we may not be any better? We need to get Conservatives/GOP people into those offices – or wherever they need to be to watch what’s going on.

Speaking of honesty and elections (that’s an oxymoron). I can’t remember which state Washington or Oregon or neither at the moment. Anyway, 16 and 17 year old students were sent forms to fill out to register to vote – so they did. Now there are 16,000 voters on the rolls that are not eligible to vote, but can and did. When it was uncovered and challenged, the issue went before a judge, who claimed that 16,000 wasn’t enough to bother with and let the legal issue fall into the cracks. Obviously, this judge had not bothered to read a newspaper during any election. I didn’t catch his name, but his message was loud and clear.

You on Oprah – not funny. Me on Oprah – pathetic.
Most of my dialogue would be on the cutting room floor. Once stopped as a lady on the street for a sound ‘bite’ regarding the 1996 election in Israel by CNN – ALL of my comments were on the floor! Guess, my sound bite actually had teeth.

Actually, I wouldn’t waffle… You _assume_ you know your friends. The problem, of course, is that sometimes you haven’t made the assessment of their character that you should have, or that you haven’t seen them in situations that tempt them, and you get fooled. Then you lose not only the results you expected, but a friendship. Or what you _thought_ was a friendship.

But you start out by assuming – what else can you do? If you choose a highly recommended unknown person, you have the same problem!

This form is different today – what did you (or the internet gnomes) change??

Writing this blog is a labor of love. However, if you'd like to donate money for my efforts, please feel free to do so: